SECTION 11 | POST-ACCIDENT SURVEILLANCE VIDEO
It is also well-established that although the existence of the surveillance must be disclosed upon request whether or not it will be used at trial, the content of the surveillance is discoverable only if it will be used at trial for substantive, corroborative, or impeachment purposes. Thus, the contents of post-accident surveillance video not intended to be presented at trial are considered attorney work product and subject to protection, not discoverable unless a showing of extraordinary circumstances can be made. See Dodson, 390 So.2d at 707-08; Huet, 912 So.2d at 340-41; and Hunt, 239 So.3d at 177-78.
The type of post-accident surveillance video at issue in Dodson of a purportedly injured plaintiff taken after the accident occurred characterized by the Florida Supreme Court as work product should be distinguished from a static, permanent store security surveillance video of the accident itself which is generally considered non-work product, discoverable under the Rules of Civil Procedure, which are designed to “prevent the use of surprise, trickery, bluff and legal gymnastics.” Target Corporation v. Vogel, 41 So.3d 962, 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) quoting Surf Drugs v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. 1970).
The Florida Supreme Court in Dodson held that judges have discretion to order the depositions of parties to be conducted before requiring production of post-accident surveillance video that is going to be used at trial. Dodson, 390 So.2d at 708. Post-Dodson, a bright line rule has been established that such surveillance video need not be produced until the surveilling party has had the opportunity to depose the subject of the video. Hankerson v. Wiley, 154 So.3d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
Generally, post-accident surveillance video that is going to be used at trial is subject to discovery and may not be used as a last-minute surprise at trial. Therefore, late or surprise disclosures of such surveillance videos are discouraged and disfavored as such tactics frequently lead to, at best, otherwise unnecessary and inefficient extensions of the Court’s existing pretrial deadlines or at worst trial continuances resulting in the Court failing to manage a case to its presumptively reasonable time period for the completion of cases in the trial courts of this state. See Rules 2.250 and 2.545, Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. In order to permit adequate time to incorporate the disclosure of such surveillance videos into the natural flow of the fact and expert discovery proceedings and other pretrial deadlines in the Court’s Case Management Order Setting Case for Jury Trial and Pretrial Conference and Requiring Matters to be Completed Prior to Pretrial Conference the surveilling party must disclose such post-accident surveillance videos, together with a written disclosure filed with the Court containing the names and business addresses of each person (i.e., videographer, private investigator) involved in conducting the surveillance and obtaining the surveillance videos together with a brief description of the nature of their involvement, and produce such unedited surveillance video to opposing counsel, or the opposing party if pro se, no later than ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) DAYS prior to the Pretrial Conference.
You might need to reference it during your pursuit of justice.
For instance, you might need to understand certain local rules to recover from the damages that lawbreaking judges/lawyers have inflicted upon you (see this example of a Florida judge who outright committed perjury).
As always, please get the justice you deserve.
Sincerely,
www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
